Thanks to Bufo for submitting an AP article about this Since I can't edit it down without the link, I'm just going to turn it into a commentary and be done with it. (Bufo, always include the link, please).

"Aiming to undercut illegal song-swapping through campus computer networks, Penn State University will offer students free digital music and limited downloading," according to AP reports.

"Students will have to pay, however, if they want to keep a song or copy it onto a CD."

"The university said it had entered into an agreement with an unidentified party to provide online digital music at no cost to students."

Are you ready? Because the punch line is next. Who is this mysterious party that can "undercut illegal song-swapping" on the Penn State campus?

"Music industry sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the provider was Napster. A Napster spokesman declined to comment."

This means it definitely is Napster. So, the grandfather of illegal file trading is going to be the savior of the recording industry? Going to undercut Kazaa?

Unless they're paying the students to listen, you can't compete with free. Just ask Mitch Bainwol.

No this is just a clever end-around by the RIAA. The labels own Napster now. They will give little or nothing for free. The students will now subsidize the recording industry directly, without a choice, without an alternative. Big Brother has resumed control of the Penn State network.

How did this happen?

"University President Graham B. Spanier co-chairs the Joint Committee of the Higher Education and Entertainment Communities with Cary Sherman, head of the Recording Industry Association of America. The committee was formed to find ways to curb illegal music swapping on college campuses."

"(Spanier) is a real leader in this and he's talked in the past about ways to do this," said Josh Bernoff, an analyst with Forrester Research Inc. "By doing this, they manage to not only potentially block piracy but remove the reason why anyone would want to do it."

Hell yeah, Josh. Let's put an RIAA-owned and controlled playlist in every room and give them commercial access to all of the students. None of these kids uses iPods or mp3 players anyway. None of them want mobile music.

This is beyond even the arrogance of Microsoft.

UPDATE

There rumors were true. It IS Napster.

From the Washington Post.
In a move aimed at stemming widescale online piracy on college campuses, Penn State University on Thursday reached a deal to offer thousands of students free access to the Napster music service.

Penn State President Graham Spanier said in a statement the school will offer students free access to digital music and limited downloading from Napster's newly relaunched music service at no cost.

Students can also buy permanent downloads that can be burned to CDs or transferred to portable devices for 99 cents each, the company said.

Here is a couple links:

AP from the Boston Globe:

http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2003/11/06/sources_penn_state_to_offer_free_music/

Cnet:

http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5103292.html

Pittsburgh Business Times:

http://pittsburgh.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/stories/2003/11/03/daily38.html

The labels do not own Napster - it is owned by Roxio. Cd Baby has distribution through Napster, so if the full Napster catalog is available then this is not a lock out by the RIAA. You can check Cd Baby's digital distribution here:

http://www.cdbaby.net/dd

gdZ,

Sorry about the missing link.

I don't think I have been providing links for any of the articles I've submitted.

Can I just manually type the link in at the end of the pasted text? Or is there some special way to include the link?

Hey guys, I am new here but I have been lurking here a while. I go to Penn State. Someone needs to contact to me so I can give you the real scoop on this.

It BLATENTLY steals from every student. They are taking MY money and giving it to the record industry WITHOUT my consent. This MUST stop. I have already contacted downhillbattle about this.

Napster 2?? Never...K-Lite....yes

Can I post my AIM name on here? Or is that a risky idea?

mroop...this is an RIAA scheme. Its obvious.

You brought this upon yourself and now you're stuck paying the RIAA. Nice job, sport.

brought this upon myself? huh? what are you talking about? I chose to further my education. What kind of uneducated fool are you? I have the real deal on what is going on here and you dont even want to hear it. This movement doesn't need you. Why dont you go out and find a nice cliff to jump off of.

"I have the real deal on what is going on here and you dont even want to hear it."

Of course I do. Spill the beans!

"brought this upon myself? huh?"

"K-lite....yes" I suppose you never downloaded RIAA product either.

mroop I am unsure how any one person brought it upon themself. I am sure that there are many uses out there for P2P that are legal and not focused on just the RIAA or MPAA content. I find myself viewing it as a means of distribution for my own work without going through hundreds, even thousands of dollars. So to sit in judgement of someone because they happen to frequent this board does not automatically make them an "infringer". I sure hope that EnforcerPSU doesnt decide to enact the DMCA and request your infomation because you violated him in some way. (perhaps defamation of character)

This is an unbelievably shitty stunt to be pulled by someone who doesn't answer to the students. Spanier has basically secured sign-off from the college heads and forfeited $X for a "service" that has nothing to do with getting an accredited education, all because he happens to be sweethearts with Mitch "Works for Hire" Glazier.

Downloading songs that the artist didn't give express permission to is very unethical; giving money to a business crony for a mandatory service that students didn't have a voice in choosing is also quite sleazy.

agree...

"You brought this upon yourself and now you're stuck paying the RIAA."

You forgot to say "The persection rests."

Bufo -- Just paste it at the end -- I'll make it into a link.

"persecution"

mroop, let me explain a few simple concepts to you.

1. It was a blatenly ignorant thing to say that EnforcerPSU "brought this on themself". Not only does this statement show how childish you are at judging a character, it also reveals your foolish ignorance to the facts of the matter.

2. If you understood anything about the article that was posted, then you would realize that this student will have part of his I.T. fee paid to the RIAA without his consent. Do you enjoy paying taxes, insurance, or other fees? Most likely not, and the fact that you have to pay these things as mandated by the US government has nothing to do with you bringing anything on yourself.

3. Before you personally bash a person who's speaking up for himself against such atrocities, perhaps you should actually read and comprehend the subject matter of the article.

It is people like yourslef who succumb to the brainwashing of the US media into thinking it is a crime to copy bytes. People like you need to learn what's really happening to their diminishing freedoms and become activists before this becomes the People's Republic of America.

mroop, I encourage you to think outside the litigation of the matter and realize what's really happening. Corporations are buying your freedoms away, one at a time. By remaining uneducated, the government can easily fool the masses to advance their own political agendas.

Soon, you will not be able to speak freely becuase the entire english language will at some point be copyrighted.

The fact that you had the right to critisize EnforcerPSU WITHOUT being sued in using your cliche shows that you enjoy such a freedom.

That right simply may not exist in the future, if you let the RIAA have it's way.

Penn State has once again sold out it's students. It's unfortunate that the juxtaposition of Capitilism and democracy are at odds with each other.

"It is people like yourslef who succumb to the brainwashing of the US media into thinking it is a crime to copy bytes."

I was going to respond point by point until I got to this part. This is the kind of thinking that plays right into the hands of the enemy. You are the RIAA's best friend. Congratulations.

I'm confused about something...
it says...
"Aiming to undercut illegal song-swapping through campus computer networks, Penn State University will offer students free digital music and limited downloading," according to AP reports.

"Students will have to pay, however, if they want to keep a song or copy it onto a CD." "

Unless you want to "keep a song" or "copy it onto a CD"....you don't get charged any more right? Does the school add some other fee for this service except for some fee for saving the song if you want to?

Sounds like you listen for free...
I say, if it's RIAA fare, just say NO to saving and paying. If no one pays, the program is a flop.

Respectfully mroop, I didn't understand
the line :
"You brought this upon yourself and now you're stuck paying the RIAA. Nice job, sport."

I didn't see how EnforcerPSU brought this on himself...unless you are saying that anyone who has ever purchased or downloaded RIAA music has brought it on themselves somehow.

"unless you are saying that anyone who has ever purchased or downloaded RIAA music has brought it on themselves somehow."

Yes, I am saying that when you download RIAA music you play right into their hands and give them the justification for the laws they seek to promote. It is putting the gun in the hand of the enemy.

Regarding payment, I did some research today. The students pay 160.00 per year (it might be per semester but I'm pretty sure the article said per year) for a "technology fee". Penn State will be paying Napster out of this fee. Penn State says the fee will not go up. Penn State also will not disclose how much Napster is being paid.

good thing they arent trying this at my university, they would get one hell of a stink from me.

hopefully when i transfer to a university there won't be any bullshit campus network rules like port filtering :\

then again, that is what we have proxies for. lol.

160.00 per year and then 99 cents a song if they want to keep it sounds like extortion to me.

Not 160 per year for Napster. The technology fee was already in existence before this deal and covers things like newspaper rights that gives students the right to read certain newspapers online and other stuff like that.

Off topic but I just saw where Schwarzenegger is establishing a Grope Probe PI to investigate the groping allegations against him.

Wouldn't Grope Probe be a good name for an album?

They get free streaming?

DRM Rule 1. : If it can be heard or seen, it can be recorded.

Now students can get their free music by streaming while running a recorder program, instead of through kazaa.

Woah...let me get this straight? Someone said they want to charge the students $160.00 per year plus .99cents per song to keep the song to burn? Why would someone want to spend $13.00 a month to use a service like radio? What a crazy scheme. And, why hasn't the riaa made a deal with recording artists yet as to what they would see off of internet sales? or have I missed something?

Im not surprised to see attempts to market directly to students. They may have little money, but they do spend a large part of that money on luxuries (music, beer, movies, beer, designer clothes, more beer), and will buy anything given sufficient marketing. They also the main demographic supplying the RIAAs profits and the largest users of p2p networks. All good reasons for the RIAA to attempt to extract as much money as possible, and set up a mechanism to continue to extract this money indefinately.

Songs are FREE. Intellectual property as a "thing" that has commercial value is a myth, or at least should be. The intent of "copyright" is NOT to give value to the song or work itself as a "thing." When you buy a CD, you are buying the plastic disk itself, the convenience and service of it being encoded with the digital data that can be read by a device that plays back the audio. And you pay for the liner notes and packaging, etc. YOU NEVER ARE PAYING FOR THE SONG ITSELF! Songs are free. Copyrights are to protect the author for a limited time to
have a monopoly on the SALE of their creation in order to help promote the very act of creation by authors. THE SONG ITSELF HAS NO $$$ VALUE! When a person shares a file, they have NOT violated copyright. Now, if a person SOLD or otherwise made money from a copy of that file while the copyright is in effect and without the permission of the author... THEN a violation of copyright has occured. The RIAA and media need to stop calling file swappers criminals.

Now, ignore what I just said and let's assume that songs themselves DO have value. I would then be all for a blanket license fee/tax that each citizen who uses the internet would pay that allowed them to make personal fair use of any and all content ON THE CONDITION that content creators were ALL fairly compensated some way and some how.
This would require a level playing field in which the independent artist's work was on equal footing with the major label stuff. Otherwise, and I'd be against any sort of "blanket license" type situation.
This article is about almost exactly such a situation. Students are obligated to pay money to the new Napster, and thus to the RIAA. No choice. This just really sucks. I don't want the RIAA to have uncontested access to our students.
It's almost the same thing as making it illegal to NOT "own" RIAA product.

What this amounts to is the same old same old from the RIAA. Stiffling the competition (independent music) in their greedy scum monopolistic way.

EnforcerPSU, If I were you, I would organize and do whatever you can to bring this issue to light of day. Get the students up there to protest this RIAA incursion. Fight hard and WIN... it is just a small part of the even larger battle for freedom in America, but if the RIAA sustains a victory at your school, then at others, the world will suffer.

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support Local and Independent Music

This is like getting the Iraqis to build our bombs and bullets for our excursion over there

Screw that college. I would be out the door as soon as I heard this bs was happening. How can this even be legal? The college taking your money for music? What the hell does this have to do with education. I suppose there will be a required RIAA file-sharing class too!

EnforcerPSU,

I would suggest contacting USG and the Village about this. Start with an AD campaign similar to "Do you Agree with Adam" if you were around at the time. I'm an alumnus, and I'll start working things from my end as you start from yours.

It's GROSSLY illegal to force students to pay ANY company for a "service" they didn't ask for. Spanier should be stoned in front of Old Main for his tawdry business practices.

Another article posted on this. Read the last paragraph: "No organized group has yet emerged to officially lobby the university, however." Someone needs to start an organized group.

From CNET news.com (both are the same article).
http://netscape.com.com/2100-1104_2-5103918.html (Netcape) http://msn.com.com/2100-1104_2-5103918.html (MSN)

I would gladly pay 160.00 or so if they would remove major label artists from all file sharing programs.

The reason there was no organized group is because this was a backdoor deal. They snuck this thing through just like the gov. sneaks through any kind of legislation that they feel is for the "better good."

iostreamh - I agree..after reading the additional info from mroop...seems like there should be an investigation into this.

This "tech fee" needs to be broken down and itemized. That's ridiculous, and this backdoor deal cutting seems really curious. Yeah, I think the Dept of Education needs to be complained to honestly.

This is very very suspicious in my opinion.

The Sony Bono act, the Work for Hire act, the DMCA, etc. were also back door deals. Yes, this one IS suspicious. And Yes, the RIAA has bullied many a campus
into "educating" the students about "illegal" file sharing already.

Folks, they are getting outta hand... when it reaches YOUR backyard, you better stand up and say something/do something about it! We are fighting an
infectuous disease here. Individually, we may not be able to do anything much on a national/worldwide scale... but when some RIAA shenannigans go down in YOUR hometown or at YOUR school... FIGHT! We must stamp em out on a local level too you know!

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support Local and Independent Music!

The students at Penn should raise heck on the following points:

1. Exactly what is the cost/student for this "service?" What's the big secret? How are people to know whether this is a good deal or a ripoff if they don't know what it is costing the University? (By the way, drudgereport.com listed this story as "free downloads at Penn..." and I wrote to correct him -- even the streaming is not free, and downloads cost even more, so he needs to change his headline!)

2. Does the Napster 2.0 service offer music from non-major, non-RIAA labels? If not, then it is a crippled service, and the students should protest that they aren't getting good value for their fee money. Also they should object that they are only allowed access to artists who have sold their souls to the major labels. Does the new Napster offer Ani Difranco, or the new Aimee Mann albums, for example? What about our poster girl Janis Ian? The independents must not be shut out, and if they are, students should raise a ruckus. That's discrimination, darn it!!!

I bet newNapster doesn't even offer Beatles tunes.

"Does the Napster 2.0 service offer music from non-major, non-RIAA labels?"

Independents can get on Napster through CD Baby. The question is, is the full Napster catalog available to Penn State?

"I bet newNapster doesn't even offer Beatles tunes."

Nobody offers Beatles tunes by the choice of the Beatles themselves.

Correction - the fee is 160 per semester.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20031107-070554-3942r.htm

I hope George Z. was right in his wishful thinking that the Beatles won't license for the good reasons of keeping their catalogue away from the insane RIAA. (See posts from a few days ago.) I still much want to believe in Beatles but fear I will be spiritually and emotionally crushed if/when it is finally revealed that Sir Paul and co. is really just about the money.

autodidact, GREAT observations well said!

mroop, the CD Baby thing is a bad deal for indies... check out downhillbattle.com for a good expose on reasons why. (I think that's where I saw it...)

Shmoo

Shmoo - it was Moses Avalon who tried to attack the CD Baby deal and when challenged by Derek of CD Baby and respected intellectual property attorneys he was torn to shreds. It turned out that Moses was looking for a "consulting fee" from CD Baby and was using scare tactics to sell his books. He is not an attorney and he didn't understand the terms he was criticizing.

"mroop, the CD Baby thing is a bad deal for indies... check out downhillbattle.com for a good expose on reasons why. (I think that's where I saw it...)"

Excuse me IM, but the source you cite is wrong, dead wrong. See the full thread at the Velvet Rope here:

http://snurl.com/2vo6
http://velvetrope.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB1&Number=355973&page=&view=&sb=&o=&fpart=1&vc=1

As mroop said, Moses was trying to extort some $ from Derek Sivers, owner of CD Baby, over CD Baby's contract to get Indie music into digital distribution with iTunes, etc. Moses' arguments were thoroughly and totally repudiated by IP and industry lawyers in the thread above.

Just a head's up. Peace.